RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/80  
 
15 June 2023 
(23-4084) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 6  JUNE  2023  
CHAIRPERSON: MS  LAURA GAUER (SWITZERLAND)  
Subjects discussed  
 
1   PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
(WT/L/917  AND WT/L/917/ADD.1)  ................................ ................................ ................  2 
1.1   Review of Recent Developments in Relation to Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs: 
Update  and Report by Preference -Granting Members Wishing to Share Any Developments  ..........  2 
1.2   Status of Notifications of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Preferential Import 
Data (G/RO/W/163/Rev.11) – Update and Report by the Secretariat  ................................ ........  3 
1.3   The Impact of GSP  Graduation on LDCs and Cumulation – The Case of Cambodia – 
Submission by Cambodia (G/RO/W/220)  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
1.4   Preliminary Comments on the Reform of Rules of Origin in the Context of the 
UK Developing  Countries Trading Scheme (DCTS) – Statement by the LDC  Group  ......................  4 
1.5   Utilization of China's and India's Preferences by LDCs (G/RO/W/222) – Submission by 
Djibouti on Behalf of the LDC  Group  ................................ ................................ ....................  4 
1.6   Proposal by the LDC  Group Concerning the Content of a CRO  Report to the General Council 
Ahead of the Next Ministerial Conference Rep orting on Preferential Rules of Origin and the 
Implementation of the Ministerial Decisions (G/RO/95 and Paragraph  8 of WT/L/1135) 
(G/RO/W/221) – Submission by Djibouti on Behalf of the LDC  Group  ................................ ........  6 
2   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF 
THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/246 – G/RO/N/253 AND 
G/RO/N/232/REV.2) – UPDATE AND REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT  ..............................  8 
3   DRAFT TRANSPARENCY DECISION ON NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
(JOB/RO/8) – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ..........................  9 
4   MC12  IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS: IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CRO – 
REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF  THE 
COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/W/217) AND COMMUNICATION BY THE 
CHAIRPERSON (JOB/RO/9 AND JOB/RO/9/REV.1)  ................................ .........................  9 
5   RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC IN THE COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN – 
REPORT  TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/W/218) AND COMPILATION PREPARED 
BY THE SECRETARIAT (G/RO /W/219)  ................................ ................................ ...........  11 
6   NEXT INFORMATION SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE OF RULES OF ORIGIN – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ................  11 
7   ACTIVITIES OF THE WCO  TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (TCRO) 
IN 2022 – REPORT BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WCO  ................................ ...............  12 
8   ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ .....................  12 
9   DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ........................  13 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 
_______________  G/RO/M/80  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Members adopted the agenda for this formal meeting of the Committee on Rules of Origin 
(WTO/AIR/RO/17 ). An annotated agenda had also been prepared for the meeting ( JOB/RO/10 ). 
Delegations attended the meeting in person or remotely via the "Interp refy" platform.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1  PREFERENTIAL RULES  OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES ( WT/L/917  AND 
WT/L/917/ADD.1 ) 
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed delegations that , under the various sub -items of the a bove heading, 
the Committee was expected to review different aspects of the implementation of the 2013  Bali and 
the 2015  Nairobi Ministerial Decisions on Preferential Rules of Origin by Least Developed Countries 
(LDCs).  
1.1  Review of Recent Developments in Rel ation to Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs: 
Update and Report by Preference -Granting Members Wishing to Share Any Developments  
1.2.  The representative of China  informed Members that his government had introduced 
developments on the LDC  preferential agreemen ts. He noted that , since 2005, China had been 
granting preferential treatment to a wide range of goods exported to China from LDCs , and that 
China had continued to expand the scope of the beneficiaries and the number of tariff lines enjoying 
duty-free trea tment. The scheme covered 98% of all tariff lines since 2021 (from 95% previously) , 
and the number of beneficiaries had increased from 22 to 44  countries. In addition, in 2020, China 
had launched a trial operation of the electronic issuing system for certi ficates of origin , which 
facilitated the issuance of certificates of origin for LDCs. Over the past 17  years, trade under the 
LDC Preferential Trade Agreement (LDC -PTA) had maintained a steady growth and strongly 
promoted LDC  exports to China. In 2022, total imports under the PTA amounted to approximately 
USD 26 billion , with an overall preference utilization rate of about 72%. He noted that China would 
continue to fulfi l its commitments under the Nairobi Decision and make positive contributions to the 
economic development of LDCs.  
1.3.  The representative of New Zealand  informed Members that her government was still reviewing 
its generalized system of preference schemes in lig ht of the WTO  rules and New Zealand's free trade 
agreements to ensure that preferences continued to sustain the economic growth of LDCs. New 
Zealand was currently working to update the list of developing Members eligible for preferential 
trade arrangements  under New Zealand's Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). LDCs in the 
UN LDC list would continue to receive duty -free treatment , and Members that had graduated from 
the UN  LDC list, but which remained significantly less developed , would be subject to 8 0% of the 
normal tariff rates for specified goods. The ongoing review therefore concerned both categories of 
Members . She confirmed  that the applicable rules of origin remained unchanged , but were under 
review. In addition, she  informed Members that New Ze aland would provide a revised notification 
prior to the changes coming into force later that year, and that New Zealand would bilaterally reach 
out to those M embers affected by the changes.  
1.4.  The representative of the United Kingdom  recalled that his governm ent had previously updated 
the Committee on Rules of Origin ( CRO) on the launch of the new UK  Developing Countries Trading 
scheme (DCTS). The  scheme would come into force on 19  June 2023. The UK would circulate a 
notification describing the applicable rules of origin shortly. This notification would include links to 
the amended UK  trade preference legislation , which was also available online ( Legislation.gov.uk ). 
The scheme contained great impro vements to the UK  rules of origin for LDCs. The rules would be 
simpler and more generous. The UK had significantly simplified the product -specific rule of origin 
under the scheme , and LDCs would be allowed to cumulate with up to 95  other eligible Members . 
The UK had also amended its legislation to allow Members that signed a Free Trade Agreement ( FTA) 
with the UK to remain in regional cumulation groups. He noted that, in revising its rules of origin, 
the UK had considered the Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
1.5.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/RO/M/80  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.2  Status of Notifications of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Preferential Import 
Data ( G/RO/W/163/R ev.11) – Update and Report by the Secretariat  
1.6.  The Secretariat (Mr  Simon Neumueller) updated the Committee on the status of notifications 
on rules of origin for LDCs a nd on related data notifications. He mentioned that the document would 
be corrected or updated in light of Members' comments  and noted that notifications by Japan and 
by Thailand had been omitted from the document  inadvertently . 
1.7.  The representative of Tanza nia appreciated the commitment by preference -granting Members . 
He applauded the improvement in notification of import data in recent years , in comparison to 
previous years. He encouraged Members that had not notified all the necessary information, in 
particular import statistics, to follow suit by submitting their notifications.  
1.8.  The representative of China  noted his delegation had always provided comprehensive data to 
the CRO. However, recent studies of preference utilization rates by the Secretariat , and from the 
LDC Group, had been based on partial data and require d more processed data due to the complexi ty 
of China's foreign trade. Other factors also needed to be considered , such as imports under FTAs. 
Furthermore, China implemented interim duty rates, which temporarily offered tariff-free treatment 
for some products during a given period. He reported tha t his delegation had been meeting with the 
Secretariat to provide more details about these factors and, in that context, his delegation had 
provided additional data for 2021 to be used to study utilization rates.  
1.9.  The representative of Japan  thanked the Sec retariat for the update.  
1.10.  The representative of Australia  informed Members that certain data submitted by his 
delegation had not been reflected in the update presented by the Secretariat.  
1.11.  The Chairperson  requested the Secretariat to prepare a revision of th e document. She also 
urged delegations whose notifications contained gaps to work with their Capitals to ensure that their 
notifications were comprehensive and up to date.  
1.12.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
1.3  The Impact of GSP  Graduation on LDCs and Cumulation – The Case of Cambodia – 
Submission by Cambodia (G/RO/W/220 ) 
1.13.  The Chairperson  invited the delegation of Cambodia to introduce its submission.  
1.14.  The representative of Cambodia  congratulated the European Union  for taking the initiative to 
reform its rules of origin for LDCs. The reformed rules had enabled Cambodia to substantially 
increase its exports to the EU, increase its utilization of preferences , and to diversify its exports. He 
noted, however, that the benefits of the reformed rules had begun t o fade in 2014, with the 
amendment to the EU's GSP  rules, which resulted in Members  being excluded from the scheme when 
either (a)  they had graduated from beneficiary status under the EU  GSP, or (b)  they had concluded 
an FTA with the EU.  
1.15.  The first  challeng e had arisen from the graduation of Malaysia from the EU's GSP in 2014. As 
a result, Cambodia's bicycle sector could no longer use components  originating in Malaysia under 
ASEAN  cumulation. This  had seriously affected the supply chain of Cambodia's bicycle  producers 
since the components  originating from Malaysia could not be readily replaced with national or 
regional alternatives. This challenge had been the object of a specific request for derogation to the 
EU. 
1.16.  The second  challenge  had emerged from the ent ry into force , on 1 August  2020, of an FTA 
between the EU and Viet Nam. As a result of the Agreement, Viet  Nam had also been excluded from 
the EU's GSP. Therefore , Cambodian producers could no longer source components from Viet Nam 
to meet the cap of 70% of value of non -originating materials , considering that most bicycles 
manufactured in Cambodia were made mainly with Vietnamese -origin materials.  
1.17.   In addition, he noted that , despite Cambodia's attempts to bring the issue to the European 
Commission's attention, current developments were unpromising . For example, he argued that the G/RO/M/80  
 
- 4 - 
 
  current EU  GSP Proposal  8 did not seem to contain any provision to remedy the existing  imbalance. 
He asked the EU to consider redressing the damage that had resulted from graduation, including the 
negative  impact  on Cambodia's private sector. He also invited the EU to reintroduce  the possibility 
of cumulation with other Members in a regiona l trade group. In this sense, he argued that the 
example of Canada could be useful . Following a consultative process, Canada had extended duty -free 
treatment to products originating in LDCs even if they included content from graduated developing 
countries.  
1.18.  In response, the representative of the European Union  thanked Cambodia for the submission, 
noting that it demonstrated the importance of the EU  system of preference s for Cambodia's bicycle 
sector. She argued that, although the economic status of Cambodia deserved assistance and 
preferential treatment, tariff preferences could not be extended to graduated Members,  even if 
indirectly. She further informed Members that the EU was aware of the disruptions that could occur 
when a Member lost its beneficiary sta tus under the GSP , and therefore offered possibilities for 
beneficiary Members to continue trading with Members with which it had signed an FTA , while citing 
the conditions set in Article  56 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)  2015-2446. In addition, 
she informed Members that the Commission's proposal for a new GSP  Regulation had modified the 
conditions under which a request for cumulation might be granted. She explained that the EU was 
still examining the request from Cambodia,  and that h er delegation stood ready to discuss the issues 
raised by Cambodia bilaterally.  
1.19.  The representative of Tanzania  thanked Cambodia for the presentation and noted that the 
paper raised systemic issues for LDCs, especially in Asia. The Nairobi Decision called f or the 
possibility of regional cumulation or cumulation with other developing Members that had conclude d 
an FTA  with the preference -granting Member. Such possibilities would spur economic activity in LDCs 
but have negligeable fiscal consequences , since all  Members involved would be trading under 
preferential terms in any case. He stressed the importance of seriously considering the issue of 
disruption of value chains in LDCs. Finally, he urged the EU to engage with Cambodia bilaterally to 
swiftly reach a solution to the challenges raised.  
1.20.  The Chairperson  noted that the paper had contained some recommendations. She therefore 
proposed that the delegations followed up bilaterally , either through consultations or in writing , in 
order to report on any progress ma de at the CRO 's next formal meeting.  
1.21.  The Committee took note  of the presentation and statements made and agreed  to proceed 
accordingly.  
1.4  Preliminary Comments on the Reform of Rules of Origin in the Context of the 
UK Developing Countries Trading Scheme (DCTS ) – Statement by the LDC  Group  
1.22.  The representative of Bangladesh, speaking  on behalf of the LDC  Group, delivered preliminary 
comments on the UK's new preferential rules of origin . In particular, he praised the UK for introducing 
positive changes in its reformed rules, including the possibility to deduct freight and insurance costs 
from the calculation of the value of non -originating materials. This had been a long -standing request  
of the LDCs. He also asked the UK to clarify certain aspects of its new certification requirements , 
and requested the UK  delegation to consider organizing an information session to brief LDCs about 
its new rules  in greater detail . 
1.23.  The representative of th e United Kingdom  welcomed the preliminary analysis by the 
LDC Group  and indicated that his delegation stood ready to engage with them bilaterally , and to 
share additional details with them once the new legislation had entered into force.  
1.24.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
1.5  Utilization of China's and India's Preferences by LDCs ( G/RO/W/222 ) – Submission 
by Djibouti on Behalf of the LDC  Group  
1.25.  The representative of Senegal  presented the LDC  Group's submission ( RD/RO/102 ). The  
submission reported the rates of preference utilization under China's a nd India's preferential trade 
arrangements for LDCs. With respect to China, the paper noted that over two-thirds of tariff lines in 
which imports were recorded had a utilization of zero (full utilization was reported for only 272  tariff G/RO/M/80  
 
- 5 - 
 
  lines). This illust rated the persistent difficulties in accessing the Chinese market under 
LDC preferences. He acknowledged that the results of the analysis could be skewed because only 
limited data was available. In this sense, he urged China to update and complement its im port 
statistics in the WTO  databases so that a full assessment of preference utilization could be 
undertaken . He also invited China to make its own calculations and present them to the CRO. With 
respect to India, he noted that an even higher proportion of tariff lines showed no utilization of 
preferences at all (that is, 1280 out of 1505  tariff lines with imports from LDCs showed a utilization 
of zero). He noted that these results covered significant imports, including wholly obtained products, 
clothing and  textile products, and precious stones. He added  that these results could be explained 
by the stringency of origin requirements. He also acknowledged that the absence of data regarding 
imports under regional trade agreements could also have influenced thes e results, in particular for 
Afghanistan, Cambodia, Myanmar,  and Nepal. He invited India to submit complementary data to the 
Secretariat so that the calculations could be revised to take all factors into account , and also invited 
India to conduct calculati ons and present them to the CRO.  
1.26.  The representative of China  thanked the LDC  Group  for its presentation , and confirmed that, 
in his delegation's view, the calculations had not taken all the necessary factors  into account . He 
explained that some of the addi tional data needed had not been notified , and that some went beyond 
Members' WTO  notification obligations. In this regard, he shared a presentation ( RD/RO/103 ) with 
preference utilization rates , including imports under FTAs and all other duty -exemption schemes. 
In these calculations, non -utilization focused only on those imports that had actually paid a n 
MFN customs duty. After such adjustments had been  made, the overall rate of utilization of China's 
preferences was 72.2% , with a significantly higher proportion of tariff lines enjoying full utilization. 
In conclusion, he reported that China  had been discussing the possibility of submitting additional 
data to the WTO  Secretariat , and that his delegation would present a more detailed study of China's 
utilization rates at a future CRO  meeting.  
1.27.  The representative of India commended the LDC  Group for their detailed  presentation. He 
noted that there were several other factors that had to be considered to have a comprehensive 
picture about utilization. When all factors were considered, the overall utilization rate would be much 
higher than that presented by the LDC  Group. He also suggested that the LDC  Group should engage 
with preference -granting Members earlier, during the preparat ion of such calculations , so that all 
the necessary factors could be taken into consideration. He pointed to examples of LDC  beneficiaries 
under India's scheme, noting that almost 100% of their imports came under its preferential regime. 
In addition, he noted that certain tariff lines in India had very low tariff rates, thereby offering low 
preferential margins. Other lines, he explained, could benefit from other types of duty exemptions. 
As a result of such factors, he proposed to carry out a more detailed  line-by-line analysis.  
1.28.  The representative of Niger  thanked delegations for their comments and encouraged Members 
to stick to the methodologies agreed by the Committee to calculate utilization rates. He urged 
Members to share any additional data with the WTO  Secretariat and with the LDCs.  
1.29.  The representativ e of Tanzania  noted that the arguments by the Indian representative made 
sense. However, he did not believe that low preferential margins had a strong impact on utilization, 
especially if trade values were high , such as in the case of minerals and metals. In addition, he said 
that FTAs benefitted only a few LDCs, so additional data would not entirely change the overall picture 
presented by the LD C Group. He urged India and China to consider engaging more intensively with 
LDCs to be able to understand the pr actical reasons for under -utilization. Minerals, for instance, were 
wholly obtained goods. The difficulties in this sector  could be related to the administration of rules 
of origin. He welcomed the assessment made by China and  encouraged India also to share its own 
analyses with the Committee. He clarified that the intention of the LDCs was to engage and 
collaborate with preference -granting Members . He thanked them for their effort s to help LDCs on 
their journey to development , and for their effort s to integrate LDCs into the global multilateral 
trading system.  
1.30.  The representative of Togo thanked Senegal for the presentation. He also thanked China and 
India for providing data to enhance the calculation of preference utilization. He said that this would 
help to increase the LDC share of global trade.  
1.31.  The representative of Cambodia  thanked China and India for their responses . He added that 
his delegation was eager to receive the full set of data from both India and China , upon completion 
of their respect ive internal procedures.  G/RO/M/80  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.32.  The representative of India reassured the LDC  Group that the consideration of import 
statistics under FTAs and other concessions would make a big difference not only to Asian LDCs , but 
also to African LDCs. He confirmed that his de legation would be coming forward with new calculations 
in the future. He requested the LDC s to avoid rushing to conclusions , but rather to wait for 
information and the fruitful exchanges that his delegation would like to have with the m. 
1.33.  The representative of China  thanked delegations for their comments and explained that his 
delegation had been discussing the methodology for calculation of preference utilization rates with 
the Secretariat since March  2023. It was his delegation's view that there was nothing  wrong in the 
methodology or the equation used. The main concern was on how different structures would be 
incorporated in to the equation. He confirmed that China would present a more comprehensive report 
describing the real situation of utilization in Chin a. 
1.34.  The representative of Australia , while referring to a presentation made in 2021 to the CRO, 
noted that utilization in the context of Regional Trade Agreements ( RTAs) tended to be high when 
full data was considered. He cautioned against the danger of dra wing hasty conclusions before 
getting a full understanding of the data. He appreciated that the LDCs had mentioned some of the 
factors that required attention  and looked forward to the future presentation s by China and India.  
1.35.  The representative of Senegal , on behalf of the LDCs, thanked China and India for their input. 
He urged other Members to complete their notification requirements . 
1.36.  The representative of Switzerland  noted that there seemed to be a need for a n assessment 
of utilization rates at the most detailed level. In this sense, it was essential that Members and the 
Secretariat had access to standardized, comprehensive, and reliable import statistics. He mentioned 
that Members should continue to engage on this discussion based on data and facts.  
1.37.  In conclusion, the Chairperson  highlighted that the LDC  Group had made specific requests in 
their presentations. Therefore , she proposed that the delegations could hold consultations or 
exchange views in writing to follow up. She w ould then turn back to this item at the CRO's next 
formal meeting.  
1.38.  The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
1.6  Proposal by the LDC  Group Concerning the Content of a CRO  Report to the General 
Council Ahead of the Next Ministerial Conference Reporting on Preferential Rules of Origin 
and the Implementation of the Ministerial Decisions ( G/RO/95  and Paragraph  8 of 
WT/L/1135 ) (G/RO/W/221 ) – Submission by Djibouti on Behalf of the LDC  Group  
1.39.  The Chairperson  recalled that the Decision  on preferential rules of origin adopted by the 
Committee in 2022 ( G/RO/95 ) required the CRO to prepare a report to the General Council ahead 
of the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference. She recalled that, in reality, the Committee prepared a 
report to the General Council on an annual basis , as prescribed by the Bali and Nairobi Minist erial 
Decisions. She also recalled that, during the last meeting of the CRO, she had sought to hear 
Members' views about how to structure such a report , and how to organize the work of the CRO in 
light of the 2022  Decision. At the time, the LDC  Group had i nformed the Committee that it needed 
additional time to identify their expectations about the work of the CRO and the report. She also 
noted that the LDC  Group had now submitted their proposal containing the headings which, in the 
Group's views, should be covered by such a report. Therefore , she invited delegations to give their 
views on the topics that should be covered, how Members wished to proceed to draft the report , and 
if there were any specific topic(s) related to preferential rules of origin which Members wished to 
focus on in the upcoming months.  
1.40.  The representative of the European Union  expressed  her delegation's support for the proposal 
of the LDC  Group in terms of the content of the report, and appreciated the effort made by the LDC s 
in analysing  how Members had implemented the 2013 and 2015  Ministerial Decisions. She sought 
to clarify whether the LDC  Group would also circulate a first  draft of the report , or if it was assumed 
that Members or the Secretariat would prepare a first  draft.  
1.41.  The representative of the United States  appreciated the work of the LDCs to generate some 
ideas for the report to the General Council. He noted that the LDCs had previously generated papers G/RO/M/80  
 
- 7 - 
 
  describing their experiences with different preferences. In this r espect, he noted that the US was 
sceptical about Members ' ability to reach an agreement on what constitute d best practices , since all 
Members were likely to prefer the practices under their own programmes. He recalled the that the 
Committee had undertaken significant work on utilization , which could be an area of focus for the 
report. He also explained that it was unlikely that preference -granting Members would make major 
changes to their programmes in the short term. He informed Members that his government  would 
try to find the reasons for low utilization , and that it would be willing to cooperate with other Members 
in pursuit of this goal. Finally, he noted that some of the topics proposed by the LDCs had not yet 
been substantially discussed in previous me etings of the Committee , while other s had not yet been 
discussed thoroughly.  
1.42.  The representative of Canada  welcomed the opportunity to report a summary of the work 
being undertaken by the CRO in line with the MC12  Ministerial outcome document. He also favou red 
the suggestion for a continued focus on the topic of preference utilization. Regarding the first  draft 
of the report, Canada was open to Members' suggestions but favoured a first draft by the Secretariat , 
as was customary at the WTO. Finally, he asked the Chairperson to clarify whether there would be 
another formal meeting of the CRO before MC13 to consider and finalize the draft.  
1.43.  The representative of India appreciated the work of the LDCs in analysing preference 
utilization rates. He acknowledged that  the topics enumerated in the Group's proposals were 
important , and that they contained some of the issues that India was also contemplating. However , 
he noted that , despite the importance of the topics, there was a need to examine further the issues 
there in before making a report. He reiterated the need to put timeliness on the tasks ahead to be 
sure of the long - and short -term goals given the limited time remaining before MC13 , while 
suggesting the prioritization of the topics where the Committee could ag ree on meaningful language. 
He supported the idea of having the Secretariat preparing  the first  draft of the report , instead of 
specific groups. The Committee would then discuss the full draft report.  
1.44.  The representative of China  expressed support for the LDC Group's initiative. China proposed 
that, instead of using the term "best practices" in item  4, Members could focus on their own analyses 
and different perspectives. He encouraged other preference -granting Members to share their 
experiences on utilization and their methods of calculation.  
1.45.  The representative of Tanzania  said that the approach had to be bottom -up, meaning that the 
language had to be proposed by LDC  delegations , followed by a consideration and discussion by the 
full Membership . The  LDCs should  take the lead since they were the ones affected by the issues 
under discussion.  
1.46.  The representative of Australia  supported a first  draft by the Secretariat. He noted that the 
outline presented by the LDCs included specific references from the p oint of view of the LDCs. 
However, the final report should reflect the views of the Committee as a whole.  
1.47.  The representative of the United States  cautioned against a first  draft report by the 
LDC Group, noting that the report should be a document prepared and endorsed by the full 
Committee and, as such, that it had to reflect the views of the whole Membership , following collective 
engagement. His concern was with the fact that, if a specific group was allowed to produce the initial 
report, the draft might b e presented when insufficient time was available for other Members to 
review it, and to provide their input.  
1.48.  The representative of the European Union  supported the preparation of the first  draft by the 
Secretariat given the limited time available before MC 13, and the fact that the LDC  report contained 
some elements that required extensive discussions. She urged Members to agree on these next 
steps to avoid a lengthy discussion on process rather than substance.  
1.49.  The representative of Cambodia  offered an alter native approach: he proposed that both the 
Secretariat and the LDC  Group prepare draft reports. Members could then consider and consult on 
the best way to merge the two  reports.  
1.50.  The representative of Canada  suggested that the CRO should follow  the practice of other 
Committee s, namely that the Secretariat would usually be tasked with the drafting of an initial 
report.  G/RO/M/80  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.51.  The Chairperson  confirmed that a formal meeting had already been scheduled for 
October  2023. She suggested that Members wishing to do so could send inputs of any type to the 
Secretariat for the compilation and preparation of a first  report. Members would then meet informally 
ahead of the next CRO  formal meeting to consider this first  draft.  
1.52.  The re presentative of the United States  sought a clarification regarding the type of inputs that 
Members were expected to submit.  
1.53.  The representative of Australia  also sought to clarify what was expected from Members , in 
particular whether it was only comments , or also recommendations. However, he  thought it might 
be premature for Members to make recommendations.  
1.54.  The representative of Tanzania  informed Members that the LDC  Group had been working on 
its inputs on the matters outlined in their submission , but that the Group need ed additional time to 
gather together all its proposals.  
1.55.  In conclusion, the Chairperson  clarified that Members could provide comments in gener al, or 
comments on specific topics , or make suggestions and recommendations for other Members to 
consider. She also encouraged the LDC  Group to submit their proposal as soon as possible, ideally 
by 15  July, so that the Secretariat could consolidate it into  a first  draft for circulation. The Secretariat 
would also include a descriptive part to the draft report. After the circulation of a first  draft, she 
would call an informal open -ended meeting of the CRO to discuss it , with a view to reaching 
agreement so that it could be adopted at the CRO's next formal meeting , in October.  
1.56.  Members agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
2  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN ( G/RO/N/246 – G/RO/N/253 AND 
G/RO/N/232/REV.2 ) – UPDATE AND REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT  
2.1.  The Secretariat  (Mr Darlan Martí) presented a summary of notification obligations regarding 
rules of origin under the WTO Agreement  on Rules of Origin . He distinguished obligations related to 
publication (in domestic sourc es) from notification (active information submitted to the WTO). He 
explained that notification obligations were contained in the WTO  Agreement on Rules of Origin 
(Article  5.1 and Annex  II, paragraph  4). These notification obligations  were also complemente d by 
obligations under the Trade Facilitation Agreement (Article  1.4) and the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial 
Decisions. Such obligations covered both non -preferential and preferential rules of origin. However, 
such obligations did not contain details about h ow they should be structure d, and what their precise 
scope should be. In the case of preferential rules of origin for LDCs, Members had adopted a detailed 
notification template that helped improve and standardize the information available. In the case of 
preferential rules of origin under regional trade agreements, no such template existed. However, 
the Secretariat coordinated internally to avoid duplicative obligations , and to en sure that 
notifications made to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements wer e also circulated to the CRO. 
Preferential rules of origin were accessible through the WTO  website of the International Trade 
Centre ( ITC), the World Customs Organization  (WCO), and the WTO Origin Facilitator . In the case 
of non -preferential rules of origin, Members had been discussing the adoption of a similar notification 
template to update and standardize the information presented by Members. The Secretariat 
mentioned that most notifications had been received in 1995 -1996, and that it was impossible to 
verify whether the legislation notified was still in force or not. Similarly, it was impossible to know 
the specific sectors and trade policy instruments to which non -preferential rules of origin ap plied. All 
the legislation and references notified could be retrieved through the rules of origin page of the WTO 
website  (Members menu under "non -preferential rules of origin").  On the b asis of the information 
available to the Secretariat: 52  Members did not apply non -preferential origin requirements; 
54 Members applied non -preferential origin requirements; and 21  Members had not yet informed 
the CRO about their practices ( RD/RO/104 ). 
2.2.  The representative of Switzerland  thank ed the Secretariat for its report and recalled that these 
information gaps had been known to Members for a number of years now. It was precisely the desire 
to update and improve the information available that had motivated the proposal of a "draft 
transpar ency decision for non -preferential rules of origin", including a notification template to be 
used by all Members ( G/RO/W/182/Rev.4 ). As a result of this situation, he expressed his delegation 's G/RO/M/80  
 
- 9 - 
 
  support for this draft decision and called on all Members to agree to updating their notificatio n 
obligations.  
2.3.  The Committee took note  of the report and the statement made.  
3  DRAFT TRANSPARENCY DECISION ON NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
(JOB/RO/8 ) – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had been considering ways to enhance the 
transparency of non -preferential rules of origin for some years already. It had considered 
five versions and revisions of a draft decision and notification template proposed by a group of 
Members.  She further recalled that, in the last formal meeting of the Committee, it had been  agreed 
that the Chairperson would hold consultations to explore textual options with a view to making 
progress with a Chairperson's text. In this regard, she  reported that  she had organized consultations 
with several Members and groups of Members. Her draft text had been circulated ( JOB/RO/8 ) and 
discussed in an informal open -ended meeting on 2  December  2022. While the text had enjoyed large 
support, a few delegations had raised concerns over certain of its elements. She sought Members' 
guidance about next steps and indicated  that she would be available to continue her consultations. 
She considered that  there were only a limited number of issues still outstanding  and believed it 
possible to find language that would acc ommodate all delegations.  
3.2.  The representative of Indonesia  thanked the Chairperson for her report. His delegation thought 
that the notifications for developing countries and LDCs should be expected one year after the 
adoption of the decision , but only  provided that technical assistance was available.  
3.3.  The representative of India noted that , while Members had made progress, his delegation had 
also raised its concerns over the Chairperson's text. India looked forward to continuing its bilateral 
consultations wi th the proponents regarding amendments that would address India's concerns.  
3.4.  The Chairperson  concluded that she would continue consulting with Members on this initiative 
with a view to finalizing a text that could subsequently be proposed to the Committee f or its adoption.  
3.5.  It was so agreed . 
4  MC12  IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS: IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CRO – 
REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN ( G/RO/W/217 ) AND COMMUNICATION BY THE 
CHAIRPERSON ( JOB/RO/9  AND JOB/RO/9/REV.1 ) 
4.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that , following discussions at the Council for Trade in Goods ( CTG) on 
possible improvements to the functioning of WTO  bodies, she had consulted delegations about 
possible steps that could be implemented to improve the work of the CRO. In her communication to 
Members, she had suggested  steps that she thought could more easily garner the support of 
Members, and which, as a result, could be implemented immediately. No delegation had objected to 
her proposals. As a result, she had proposed that the Committee immedia tely implement the 
following six  steps :1 
(a) Ask the Secretariat to organize introductory sessions describing the past and current work of 
the CRO as well as the legal instruments that underpin the work of the Committee;  
(b) Ask the Secretariat to prepare  a manual describing the main procedural and substantive 
aspects of the work of the CRO (possibly to be made available online);  
(c) Start issuing an annotated agenda ahead of formal meetings to give delegations greater 
background about each of the items to  be discussed and possible action or decisions expected 
at the meeting;  
(d) Circulate in writing any oral reports delivered by the Chairperson or the Secretariat when this 
could be helpful;  
(e) Systematically add hyperlinks to facilitate access to document s cited in documents circulated 
to Members; and  
 
1 ICN/RO/1  and ICN/RO/2 . G/RO/M/80  
 
- 10 - 
 
  (f) Continue the current practice of organizing meetings in a hybrid format unless there was a 
decision to the contrary by the WTO.  
 
4.2.  She then proposed to hear delegations' views on other possible improvements, in particular:  
(a) Whether the CRO should implement the eAgenda platform;  
(b) Whether to cluster meetings of the CRO and other bodies or hold joint sessions;  
(c) Whether to implement any changes to the way the minutes of the CRO were prepared ; and  
(d) Whether the Committee should be using the trade concerns database.  
 
4.3.  The representative of the European Union  noted that the EU appreciated the transparent, 
step-by-step approach taken by the Chairperson on this matter. With reference to 
document  JOB/RO/9/Rev.1 , her delegation agreed with th e measures proposed for immediate 
implementation. The EU also welcomed the detailed annotated agenda that had been circulated , 
which had been very useful when preparing for the meeting. Regarding the eAgenda, the EU thought 
that it was a useful tool to bui ld the agenda, and to prepare for and follow up on meetings , and also 
that it could contribute to a faster preparation of the minutes. She asked whether the implementation 
of the eAgenda would have budgetary implications. Furthermore, she welcomed the idea  of 
circulating oral reports before the meetings. She also lauded the good practice of engaging with 
other stakeholders and international organizations , noting that this would be done on a needs basis 
or upon a proposal by Members . 
4.4.  The representative of th e United Kingdom  appreciated the proactive approach the Chair had 
taken. His delegation also supported the implementation of the six  steps proposed by the 
Chairperson. He agreed that the eAgenda was helpful , especially to Members with capacity concerns , 
and that it facilitated information -sharing without cost implications. He stressed the need to prioritize 
the circulation of minutes as quickly as possible after Committee meetings.  
4.5.  The representative of Canada  was pleased to discuss areas for improvement  in the Committee 's 
work. She added that Canada was keen to see how its proposals to the General Council would relate 
to the work of this body. She confirmed that the eAgenda, the hyperlinks, and the annotated agenda 
were very valuable tools. She looked fo rward to further engagement on these matters.  
4.6.  The representative of Ecuador  welcomed the proposals , citing the limited resources available 
to his delegation. He also proposed an introduction to digital tools to Members to familiarize them 
with such tools. He welcomed the annotated agenda and hyperlinks. He mentioned that the e Agenda 
was useful in the preparation and follow -up to Committee meetings.  
4.7.  The representative of Japan  noted that the CRO had been functioning well in its active 
discussions, series of webinars , and experience -sharing sessions, and that the proposals would help 
to further improve the Committee 's functioning.  
4.8.  The representative of India complimented the Chairperson and the Secretariat for proposals 
that were good , and positive , and which contributed to a better functioning of the CRO. He noted 
had his delegation had proposed incremental changes to improve the work of WTO  bodies. He 
welcomed the six areas proposed  by the Chairperson , noting that the se proposals were essential. 
He mentioned that the eAgenda would be beneficial provided that it did not have cost implications. 
He also stressed the need for improvements in the preparation and circulation of minutes.  
4.9.  The representative of the United States  appreciated that the documents had been circulated in 
advance to help in preparing for the meeting. He agreed with the assessment in relation to improving 
coordination and coherence with the work of other WTO  bodies, in particular the Committee on Trade 
and Development (CTD) and the Sub-Committee on Least -Developed Countries . Both bodies also 
discussed the integration of LDCs into the multilateral trading system and the impact of preferential 
rules of origin. H e also proposed  educational events , such as those on the history of harmonization , 
and on the background to, and work of , the CRO.  
4.10.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  commended the Chairperson and the Secretariat 
for the useful next steps and timely overview table, noting that Korea was open to any meaningful 
engagement in the Committee. He informed  Members  that Korea  supported the six  measures  G/RO/M/80  
 
- 11 - 
 
  proposed . He further noted that the eAgenda would also be useful , provided that its implementation 
would h ave no budgetary implication.  
4.11.  The representative of Australia  expressed support for the six  items proposed. He also said 
that the clustering of meetings could be useful to provide a greater incentive for capital -based 
officials to travel to Geneva. One pos sibility would be to cluster meetings of the CRO with those of 
the Committee on Market Access – CMA (informal meetings). Regarding the trade concerns 
database, he noted that the Committee did not normally deal with many trade concerns ; he was 
therefore sce ptical concerning  the relevance of the database to the work of the CRO.  
4.12.  The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their comments and inputs and She proposed the 
following : 
(i) First, that the Committee move ahead and implement the six  steps to which it had already 
agreed  and to implement  eAgenda subject to it being budget -neutral ; 
(ii) Second, that the Chairperson circulate a written summary of additional steps discussed during 
the meeting , for further discussion;  and 
(iii) Finally, the Chairperson would  ask the Secretariat to prepare a draft report for the CTG 
describing the Committee 's discussions and steps agreed. The Committee could consider this 
draft report – and revise  it as necessary – at its next formal meeting.  
 
4.13.  It was so agreed . 
5  RESPONSE TO THE  PANDEMIC IN THE COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN – REPORT TO 
THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES 
OF ORIGIN ( G/RO/W/218 ) AND COMPILATION PREPARED BY THE SECRETARIAT 
(G/RO/W/219 ) 
5.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, at the request of the Chair of the CTG, she had prepared an 
overview of the activities of the CRO related to the COVID -19 pandemic. The report showed that the 
Committee had not recently reverted to this item. Therefore, she had asked the Se cretariat to 
prepare a document list ing the origin -related measures taken by WTO  Members in response to the 
COVID -19 pandemic. The compilation had been prepared and was being proposed for information 
only. She emphasized that all the  measures listed  had be en sourced from notifications made to the 
Committee on Market Access, the Committee on Trade Facilitation , and/or had been collected in the 
context of the WTO  trade monitoring mechanism. She considered that the  compilation  would prove 
to be a useful docume nt for future reference. Its relevance and usefulness would be additionally 
boosted if all delegations correct ed and update d it. To this end, she requested Members to review 
the report and provide any comments to the Secretary , as necessary.  
5.2.  The representative of the European Union  thanked the Secretariat for the document and 
indicated that it would  send its comments on the document to the Committee's Secretary. In the 
case of the EU, one of the temporary measures listed had since been lifted.  
5.3.  The Chairperson  reiterated her request to  delegations to send any corrections or supplementary 
information to the Secretariat. If necessary , a revision of the document would be circulated  in due 
course . 
5.4.  It was so agreed . 
6  NEXT INFORMATION SESSION OF THE CO MMITTEE OF RULES OF ORIGIN – STATEMENT 
BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
6.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had been holding regular information and 
experience -sharing sessions since at least 2014. She noted that this was a well -established and good 
practice , and a practice that had been proposed to improve the functioning also of other WTO  bodies. 
In relation to such future sessions, different topics had been proposed by Members , as followed : 
(i) Self-certification of origin and exchange of experienc es and possible best practices;  
(ii) Automation and digital certificates of origin also with an exchange of experiences and possible 
best practices;  G/RO/M/80  
 
- 12 - 
 
  (iii) A continuation of previous sessions on the factors influencing the utilization of trade 
preferences w ith a focus on the impact of origin requirements (building on the two sessions 
organized in 2020 and 2021); and  
(iv) Methodological and statistical issues related to the calculation of preference utilization rates.  
 
6.2.  Going forward, the Chairperson asked del egations to inform the Secretariat about other 
possible topics  of interest to them , and also about their willingness to contribute speakers for any of 
the topics. She would discuss possible dates and specific topics with the Secretariat and inform 
delegati ons in due course.  
6.3.  The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
7  ACTIVITIES OF THE WCO  TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (TCRO) IN 
2022 – REPORT BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WCO  
7.1.  The representative of the World Customs Organization (WCO)  report ed on  the activities of the 
WCO Technical Committee on Rules of Origin (TCRO) in 2022  (RD/RO/ 105). She also informed 
Members of the launch of the Global Origin Conference , which would take place in Chile. In addition, 
she informed Members about the Master Trainer Programme that the WCO was offering in 
collaboration with  the Japan International Cooperation Agency  (JICA), whose aim was to train new 
trainers of customs officials. She also informed Members about the implementation of a n EU-funded 
capacity building programme to support the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade 
Area.  
7.2.  The representative of Tanzania  thanked the WCO for its work and capacity -building effort. He 
also lauded the WCO for incorporating preferential rules of orig in and the Nairobi Decision in its 
capacity -building instruments. He welcomed the Global Origin Conference that would take place in 
Chile in November, noting that it would contribute to a better understanding of how rules of origin 
affect ed international t rade. 
7.3.  The representative of Togo thanked the WCO and the sponsors of the capacity -building 
projects. He sought more clarity as to whether or not the WCO had carried out and completed a 
study on the digital certification of origin , and if so, whether there were any preliminary results that 
could be shared. He also requested the WCO to consider involving trade officials dealing with rules 
of origin, in addition to customs officials, in their training  programmes . 
7.4.  The representative of the  Russian Federation  noted that , given that the WCO was an important 
observer to the CRO, the Committee could consider requesting the WCO to make a more detailed 
presentation of their work on rules of origin, including the history, an overview of their instruments, 
the background, and their achievements.  
7.5.  In response , the WCO representa tive informed Members that she would consult with JICA on 
the matter. The WCO  representative further informed delegates that they could reach out to the 
WCO if they had any capacity -enhancement requests. The WCO, she explained, could collect and 
see how be st to respond to Members' needs. She also confirmed that the digital certification survey 
had been completed , and that its results would be published later in June. The practices of 
84 Members in this area would be described in the report , based on answers  to a questionnaire.  
7.6.  The Committee took note  of the report and the statements made.  
8  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
8.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that the Council for Trade in Goods had just recently 
reached a consensus on a slate of names of officials to  serve as chairpersons of regular bodies of 
the WTO in 2023. In the case of the CRO, she informed the Committee that Mr  Elia Mtweve had 
been proposed as its new Chairperson. She asked the Committee to confirm Mr Mtweve's election 
by acclamation.  
8.2.  The Commit tee elected  Mr Mtweve as the Chair person  of the CRO for the 2023 -2024 period.  G/RO/M/80  
 
- 13 - 
 
  9  DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE  
9.1.  The Chairperson  informed delegations that the dates of the next formal meetings of the 
Committee had been scheduled for 12  October  2023 an d 7 May 2024. These dates had been  
confirmed and were reflected in the WTO  calendar of meetings.  
9.2.  The Committee took note  of these dates.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.  There were no items raised under "Other Business ". 
10.2.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________